Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 161
March 2013
Baytüre v. Turkey (dec.) - 3270/09
Decision 12.3.2013 [Section II]
Article 8
Article 8-1
Respect for private life
Lack of entitlement to compensation from State for paralysis caused by vaccine that was recommended but not compulsory: inadmissible
Facts – The applicants are a couple and their child. In line with doctors’ recommendations, the child was vaccinated at the age of three months against several illnesses, including poliomyelitis. The vaccination resulted in paralysis of his right foot. The applicants filed a claim for compensation. The court dismissed their claim, holding that no fault on the part of the services of the Ministry of Health had been established. It based its decision, inter alia, on an expert report which concluded that the frequency of complications such as that suffered by the applicant was extremely rare and impossible to prevent medically. The applicants lodged an appeal on points of law. They complained, in particular, that the court had not accepted the principle of no-fault liability on the part of the authorities, which, they alleged, would have made it possible to award them compensation. The Supreme Administrative Court upheld the impugned judgment.
Before the European Court, the applicants complained of the refusal by the national courts and State authorities to grant compensation for the damage they had sustained.
Law – Article 8: The scope of Article 8 included questions related to individuals’ physical and psychological integrity, their involvement in the choice of medical care provided and their consent thereto, and also access to information enabling them to assess the health risks to which they are exposed. If, however, in the context of a vaccination campaign, the sole aim of which was to protect public health by eradicating infectious diseases, a small number of serious accidents occurred, the State could not be criticised for failing to take due measures to protect those individuals’ physical integrity. In the instant case, the case file did not indicate that the vaccine had been inappropriately administered or that adequate measures had not been taken to avoid the risks related to the vaccination from occurring. The applicant had been a victim of an adverse reaction from a recommended vaccine and the Court was conscious of the difficulty inherent in such a situation. However, in a system where vaccination was not compulsory, and in the absence of medical error, the introduction of a compensation system for victims of harm arising from a vaccination was essentially a social-security measure, which fell outside the scope of the Convention. Consequently, the applicants’ complaints had to be dismissed as being incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention.
Conclusion: inadmissible (incompatible ratione materiae).
(See also Trocellier v. France (dec.), no. 75725/01, 5 October 2006, Information Note no. 90)
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy